UK voters should make final Brexit decision if talks with EU collapse: poll

[BwindiBoy]

30 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

Heath surprisingly won the 1970 Election on the back of a firm commitment to join the EEC. Labour were also in favour of joining but less committed. The narrow vote in Parliament was all about the terms of entry (as opposed to entry itself), which of course were later re-negotiated by Wilson and put to the Country in the form of a referendum to appease his left wing. The result was 67-33 in favour. The methodology can be criticised, but it led to the right result at the time.

To join a COMMON MARKET only, which probably more than 90% of people would still be in favour of today.

[RuamRudy]

15 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

I am not trying to misrepresent everything you say but what you gave  as usual.was completely one sided.

 

I offered you a different set of figures that you don't like but cannot argue with.

 

OK, another referendum option then.

 

The Scottish Independence referendum in 2014 about Scotland becoming Independent.

 

Those who voted NO got  2,001,926 votes

Those who voted YES got 1,617,989 votes.

 

They came second as did the Remainers in the Brexit vote.

 

Strangely enough the losers in BOTH referendums are shouting for another.

 

 

Of course they are calling for repeats - for most people, their political compass isn't dispensible, but is tied up with integrity and conviction.

 

In both referenda, if the winning sides had gone on to develop convincing arguments as to why the correct result had been achieved, maybe all would be well in the country. But in both cases the winning sides have spectacularly failed to demonstrate to their opponents anything even remotely positive about the outcomes.

[melvinmelvin]

13 minutes ago, BwindiBoy said:

To join a COMMON MARKET only, which probably more than 90% of people would still be in favour of today.

it is worth remembering that one of several reasons for the eec --> eu development is that uk has OKed it

 

[billd766]

11 hours ago, adammike said:

It will have to be a 65:35 split because Nigel said before the referendum that a 60:40 vote to remain would be "unfinished business".

But Nigel Farage is NOT a member of the UK parliament, neither are all the Remainers DEMANDING another vote.

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

48 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

it is worth remembering that one of several reasons for the eec --> eu development is that uk has OKed it

 

True enough. BUT when you say that 'the UK okay-ed it', this was in fact only certain ministers in the UKP and I guess also the, EP, elected officials - some of them, but not acting on any kind of mandate or approval from the British public who were never consulted (or often even informed) about any of the acts of closer union. Those British ministers who did vote for these policies didn't do it in the interests of the British public, I'm sure.

 

Again, the EU commission always was (and still is) able to both design and propose all legislation such as the acts of 'ever closer union' as well repeal any legislation that it didn't like, so if the UK ministers within the EUP (and Westminster for that matter) had not signed off on all the 'added extras' of the last 40 years, the EU top echelons (commission et al) who create such policy, would have been able to out out-maneuvre them in any case. The EU is not properly democratic by its very design, it's faux-democracy at best. Dressed up to look that way, but in reality bears little resemblance with a proper democratic institution. So it is not fair to say that 'UK' in the real sense of that title ever okayed anything, most people have never had much of a clue about what goes on in the EU and what policy they have implemented, until recently... when much of the damage was already done.

Edited October 11, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[tebee]

2 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

......The EU is not properly democratic by its very design, it's faux-democracy at best. Dressed up to look that way, but in reality bears little resemblance with a proper democratic institution. So it is not fair to say that 'UK' in the real sense of that title ever okayed anything, most people have never had much of a clue about what goes on in the EU and what policy they have implemented, until recently... when much of the damage was already done.

Our own democracy doesn't seem to be working very well at the moment  - nearly half the votes were cast for remain, and there is no major party championing our cause  in parliament at the moment or even trying to ensure we don't get the worst sort of damaging brexit. 

[melvinmelvin]

4 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

True enough. BUT when you say that 'the UK okay-ed it', this was in fact certain ministers in the UKP and I guess also the, EP, elected officials - some of them, but not acting on any kind of mandate of approval from the British public who were never consulted (or often even informed) about any of the acts of closer union. Again, the EU commission always was (and still is) able to both design and propose all legislation such as the acts of 'ever closer union' as well repeal any legislation that it didn't like, so if the UK had ministers within the EUP (and Westminster for that matter) had not signed off on all the 'added extras' of the last 40 years, the EU top echelons who decide on such things would have been able to out out-maneuvre them in any case. The EU is not properly democratic by its very design, it's faux-democracy at best. Dressed up to look that way, but in reality bears little resemblance with a proper democratic institution. So it is not fair to say that 'UK' in the real sense of that title ever okayed anything, most people have never had much of a clue about what goes on in the EU and what policy they have implemented, until recently... when much of the damage was already done.

3

 

ok, change UK to UK plenipotentiaries then

 

otherwise, your post;

well spotted, few people really understand this inbuilt design feature in EU legislation,

its almost always; the most strict member state lose out the most frivolous win

 

you see this in many many directives,

not so much in treaties though, me thinks

[melvinmelvin]

11 minutes ago, tebee said:

Our own democracy doesn't seem to be working very well at the moment  - nearly half the votes were cast for remain, and there is no major party championing our cause  in parliament at the moment or even trying to ensure we don't get the worst sort of damaging brexit. 

if no party want to champion your stance,

make your own or lose out

 

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

35 minutes ago, tebee said:

Our own democracy doesn't seem to be working very well at the moment  - nearly half the votes were cast for remain, and there is no major party championing our cause  in parliament at the moment or even trying to ensure we don't get the worst sort of damaging brexit. 

Brexit has been a shambles I agree. But I think that its unfair to say that the Remain view is not represented in government. Lab and Cons both have a majority of ministers / shadow ministers who are pro Remain and this can be seen in the way Brexit negotiations have been organised. Both the previous and current PMs both backed Remain after all. Which is pretty ludicrous when you think about it and the state of affairs at the moment. 

 

It seems that many of those involved in bringing Brexit to fruition are doing so with gritted teeth and against their own convictions. This is once again where I am in agreement with P.Hitchens, among others, who although they (and I) are strongly in favour of leaving the EU, are agreed that - 'holding a referendum to enforce it, rather than electing a political party, who are fundamentally Eurosceptic, on the basis of leaving the EU is doing it the wrong way around'. Simply because the Tories didn't really want to leave the EU any more than Labour did. Why else did Cameron resign the following day? So bascially, after the referendum those who brought it about and lobbied for it so successfully were nowhere to be seen. As they were not in a position of power to help enact it or have any say in the proceedings. 

 

So what we've got has been the shambles that has unfolded. I am not suggesting by saying this / echoing these sentiments, that the referendum is in any way illegitimate, it was a democratic expression of the will of the people, but I do think more and more that doing things the other way around would have worked much better. Electing a party of people who uniformly believed in the cause, to do the job of leaving the EU would have actually satisfied more people 'democratically', both Leave and Remain - and, crucially, would have made for a much more solid foundation to proceedings. The truth is though that UKIP would never have won an election, not merely because of impediment from FPTP. So the referendum and it's fallout is what we have got and must make the best of as it has brought about the desired outcome anyway. It's just a shame that it has happened in such a confused and flawed manner.

Edited October 11, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[tebee]

31 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

if no party want to champion your stance,

make your own or lose out

 

 

17 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

Brexit has been a shambles I agree. But I think that its unfair to say that the Remain view is not represented in government. Lab and Cons both have a majority of ministers / shadow ministers who are pro Remain and this can be seen in the way Brexit negotiations have been organised. Both the previous and current PMs both backed Remain after all. It seems that many of those involved in bringing Brexit to fruition are doing so with gritted teeth and against their own convictions. This is once again where I am in agreement with P.Hitchens, among others, who although they (and I) are strongly in favour of leaving the EU, are agreed that - 'holding a referendum to enforce it, rather than electing a political party, who are fundamentally Eurosceptic, on the basis of leaving the EU is doing it the wrong way around'. Simply because the Tories didn't really want to leave the EU any more than Labour did. Why else did Cameron resign the following day? So bascially, after the referendum those who brought it about and lobbied for it so successfully were nowhere to be seen. As they were not in a position of power to help enact it or have any say in the proceedings. 

 

So what we've got has been the shambles that has unfolded. I am not suggesting by saying this / echoing these sentiments, that the referendum is in any way illegitimate, it was a democratic expression of the will of the people, but I do think more and more that doing things the other way around would have worked much better. Having elected people who uniformly believed in the cause to do the job of leaving the EU would have actually satisfied more people democratically and would have made for a much more solid foundation to proceedings. The truth is though that UKIP would never have won an election, not merely because of any impediment from FPTP. So the referendum and it's fallout is what we have got and must make the best of as it has brought about the desired outcome anyway. It's just a shame that it has happened in such a confused and flawed manner.

But this is the problem with FPTP - it's very hard for any new party to gain sufficient traction to win any seats let alone enough to influence parliament. 

 

You end up reinforcing the power of the incumbent parties, power goes to those know how to work their parties respective internal machinery and you end up with career politicians in power whose sole aim is to retain that power and not what is best for the country or even their own beliefs. The proportional representation system makes it much easier for new parties to thrive when a good percentage of the population's views  is not represented by the two main parties - witness UKIP with their success in the EU parliament and lack of same in ours.   

 

I agree there are a good number of remain ministers on both sides, but neither lot has the power to influence the outcome without the help of lot on the other side - thus splitting both their parties - as #Grouse says, a classic case of the Nash Equilibrium.  

 

 

We did have the leaders of Vote leave in positions of power in government though - they seem to have been unable to come up with good solutions there though. This is the Brexit conundrum - the people voted for a prosperous UK outside the EU - no one seems to know how to deliver this unfortunately, certainly not in the timescales we have.

 

I suspect Brexit will break both of the current political parties - it may even end up breaking our political system, which certainly seems to be failing to deliver at the moment.    

 

[mommysboy]

4 hours ago, kwilco said:

Anyone who thinks a referendum is "democracy" needs to seriously rethink their ideas.

A simple majority vote never is nor was an example of democracy.

Democracy is government of the people y the people for the people - there is no citation of "majority" there.

 

Democratic countries that wish to make major constitutional changes usually require a "supermajority" to make any change

Referendums are the tools of despots and dictators who wish to claim "democratic" credentials for their undemocratic aims.

 

by going down this road the UK government (thanks to Cameron) has de-democratised themselves.

 

What is needed and traditional in the UK for this kind of thing is an election - that's how they have done things for centuries.

 

As I saw before, the majority on the Brexit referendum is a joke.

 

 

'Democracy is government of the people y the people for the people'.

 

Quite so,  Brexit  has been subverted by far right of the Tory party, mostly English, and their desires do not correspond at all with what most people want from Brexit.  That is the sole reason why there has been no agreement, and even if one is struck it's very likely to be voted down.

 

The other thing about referendi (lately anyway) is a tendency to produce a close contest, perhaps where none really exists, since the matter in hand may become a secondary factor to that of delivering a protest vote.

 

 

[mommysboy]

2 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Of course they are calling for repeats - for most people, their political compass isn't dispensible, but is tied up with integrity and conviction.

 

In both referenda, if the winning sides had gone on to develop convincing arguments as to why the correct result had been achieved, maybe all would be well in the country. But in both cases the winning sides have spectacularly failed to demonstrate to their opponents anything even remotely positive about the outcomes.

 

Good argument, but both were billed as 'once and for all', which is usually interpreted as once every 30 years or so.

 

I can fully sympathise with Scotland's frustration. Although, I would point out their dis-satisfaction is with the Tory party and not England, or the UK as a whole.

[transam]

2 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

'Democracy is government of the people y the people for the people'.

 

Quite so,  Brexit  has been subverted by far right of the Tory party, mostly English, and their desires do not correspond at all with what most people want from Brexit.  That is the sole reason why there has been no agreement, and even if one is struck it's very likely to be voted down.

 

The other thing about referendi (lately anyway) is a tendency to produce a close contest, perhaps where none really exists, since the matter in hand may become a secondary factor to that of delivering a protest vote.

 

 

Is the present UK gov ruling by the votes of the people...?

[tebee]

2 minutes ago, transam said:

Is the present UK gov ruling by the votes of the people...?

NO

[mommysboy]

Just now, transam said:

Is the present UK gov ruling by the votes of the people...?

Yes it is (just).

 

Is the present Government ruling by the will of the people on what Brexit deal? ... Absolutely not.

 

We see this in action, as the Gov's main battle is not now with the EU but with Parliament, Scotland, and N.Ireland.  Quite simply people wanted and expected some form of soft Brexit, and two countries did not want Brexit at all.

 

 

 

 

[transam]

1 minute ago, mommysboy said:

Yes it is (just).

 

Is the present Government ruling by the will of the people on what Brexit deal? ... Absolutely not.

 

We see this in action, as the Gov's main battle is not now with the EU but with Parliament, Scotland, and N.Ireland.  Quite simply people wanted and expected some form of soft Brexit, and two countries did not want Brexit at all.

 

 

 

 

Tut tut.......The UK gov is ruling because THEY bought Irish stuff....Brexit was a yes or no vote with no buying stuff......Yes won with no buying ..

 

YES or NO...?...

 

 

[RuamRudy]

10 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

Good argument, but both were billed as 'once and for all', which is usually interpreted as once every 30 years or so.

 

I can fully sympathise with Scotland's frustration. Although, I would point out their dis-satisfaction is with the Tory party and not England, or the UK as a whole.

I would say successive Tory and Labour governments are the root cause of the dissatisfaction, but you are right that it is not anti-English in any way.

 

Scotland sends the London exchequer approximately GBP58 billion per year. 30 billion is returned as a block grant to the Scottish government. Westminster then states that it spends 43 billion on behalf of Scotland, and that therefore Scotland has a deficit of 15 billion. Of course, that 43 billion is out of our control, and thus includes such things as a share of London Crossrail, HS2, London sewer replacement, Trident etc etc, and much is simply invisible to us.

 

[melvinmelvin]

46 minutes ago, tebee said:

 

But this is the problem with FPTP - it's very hard for any new party to gain sufficient traction to win any seats let alone enough to influence parliament. 

 

You end up reinforcing the power of the incumbent parties, power goes to those know how to work their parties respective internal machinery and you end up with career politicians in power whose sole aim is to retain that power and not what is best for the country or even their own beliefs. The proportional representation system makes it much easier for new parties to thrive when a good percentage of the population's views  is not represented by the two main parties - witness UKIP with their success in the EU parliament and lack of same in ours.   

 

I agree there are a good number of remain ministers on both sides, but neither lot has the power to influence the outcome without the help of lot on the other side - thus splitting both their parties - as #Grouse says, a classic case of the Nash Equilibrium.  

 

 

We did have the leaders of Vote leave in positions of power in government though - they seem to have been unable to come up with good solutions there though. This is the Brexit conundrum - the people voted for a prosperous UK outside the EU - no one seems to know how to deliver this unfortunately, certainly not in the timescales we have.

 

I suspect Brexit will break both of the current political parties - it may even end up breaking our political system, which certainly seems to be failing to deliver at the moment.    

 

 

agree with you that fptp has a lot to answer for

 

it is a problem changing it

that there always will be a large number of politicians gaining from it

and they can't look further than their present gain

[mommysboy]

10 minutes ago, transam said:

Tut tut.......The UK gov is ruling because THEY bought Irish stuff....Brexit was a yes or no vote with no buying stuff......Yes won with no buying ..

 

YES or NO...?...

 

 

I can't rightly understand your posting!

 

If you mean the UK Government isn't really ruling by a clear mandate.. yes spot on: I'd forgotten that it is a sort of coalition with DUP.

 

If you mean was there a clear mandate for Brexit... yes there was. 

 

If you are claiming there is a mandate for the envisaged deal... no there absolutely isn't because a big majority of people want some form of soft Brexit.

[Stupooey]

3 hours ago, BwindiBoy said:

To join a COMMON MARKET only, which probably more than 90% of people would still be in favour of today.

 

Not sure about that. Freedom of Movement and the CAP, which I understand are two of the main reasons the UK voted to leave, were both in existence when the UK joined.

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, transam said:

Is the present UK gov ruling by the votes of the people...?

As an outsider I would say that current UK government is mostly for themselves. If they are afraid make decisions, which are right for the country, just because of they could lose few votes, they are not worthy of the position.

 

Machines, which produce pretty, meaningless words.

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

1 hour ago, tebee said:

I suspect Brexit will break both of the current political parties - it may even end up breaking our political system, which certainly seems to be failing to deliver at the moment.

 

I fear you may be right. I also don't want to see the dissolution of our own union at the expense of leaving the European one. Ours at least, is one that works and has existed prosperously and (more or less) peacefully for centuries. I do have my reservations about post Brexit Britain, anyone who doesn't would be foolish or myopic. I still argue that being outside the EU is preferable and the perfectly legitimate concerns and reasons to leave trump the multitude of mostly trivial and self-serving reasons that Remainers and the pro-EU politicians have referenced for staying in. I can only hope that the UK can get its act together to make the best of a shambolic and massively flawed Brexit process.

 

Like I've said before, healing of divisions and some return to solidarity as well as strong and intelligent leadership will be vital to our success post-Brexit. Here's to hoping, I remain very cautiously optimistic.

 

Edited October 11, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[vogie]

16 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Yes it is (just).

 

Is the present Government ruling by the will of the people on what Brexit deal? ... Absolutely not.

 

We see this in action, as the Gov's main battle is not now with the EU but with Parliament, Scotland, and N.Ireland.  Quite simply people wanted and expected some form of soft Brexit, and two countries did not want Brexit at all.

 

 

 

 

Where do you get this "people wanted a soft brexit", this terminology only came into the publics vocabulary months after the referendum. We voted as a Nation to stay or leave, nothing more, nothing less.

We know things are not going as smoothly as one would wish for, but the last time I checked the polls the Tories were still ahead of labour. We can forget about the LibDems, the party that voters shunned because they wanted another referendum.

Incidentally Labour had a hard brexit in their manifesto.

I watched Alistair Campbell with Nigel Farage on Breakfast TV the other day and Nigel suggested that the Labour Party was split, to which he replied, "no it isn't, it's divided, the mind boggles.

[My Thai Life]

More disturbing news about the “dysfunctional” EU’s “economic illiteracy”. Brussels will find they can’t bully Italy like they bullied Greece.

 

“Matteo Salvini, vowed to sweep away the existing European order. He called Jean-Claude Juncker and his Commission aides "enemies of Europe barricaded inside their Brussels bunker.” 

“He accused Jean-Claude Juncker and the Brussels machine of ravaging the European economy for a decade with destructive policies, and blamed the spreads on orchestrated speculation.””

 

“Ashoka Mody, former deputy-chief of the International Monetary Fund for Europe, said the EU’s budget target is theological nonsense, and the weight attached to a few decimal points here or there is false science. “These numbers are completely meaningless. The fiscal rule is economically illiterate and dysfunctional, yet a narrative has grown that it is somehow sacrosanct,” he told a forum at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).”

 

“Professor Luigi Zingales, an expert on the Italian banks at Chicago University, said the eurozone has done to Italy what foreign creditor powers did to Germany in 1930, cutting off capital flows in a ‘sudden stop’ and then enforcing drastic austerity. Brussels should not now be surprised at the political consequence of this myopia.”

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/10/08/italian-banks-caught-vicious-circle-bond-spreads-hit-danger/?li_source=LI&li_medium=li-recommendation-widget

 

Edited October 11, 2018 by My Thai Life

[mommysboy]

10 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I would say successive Tory and Labour governments are the root cause of the dissatisfaction, but you are right that it is not anti-English in any way.

 

Scotland sends the London exchequer approximately GBP58 billion per year. 30 billion is returned as a block grant to the Scottish government. Westminster then states that it spends 43 billion on behalf of Scotland, and that therefore Scotland has a deficit of 15 billion. Of course, that 43 billion is out of our control, and thus includes such things as a share of London Crossrail, HS2, London sewer replacement, Trident etc etc, and much is simply invisible to us.

 

Scotland has developed- that doesn't come cheap!  I don't think there are any grounds for claiming it has been short changed.  I do agree that successive governments have been a sxxxshow, the present one perfectly exemplifying the brown exhibition.  Thus, Scotland has merely suffered from the same mis-management as the rest.

 

The frustration for Scotland and most reasonable Brits as a whole is that they want a government equal to the challenges of the time: resecuring public utilities, renewable energy, business regeneration, fair distribution of wealth.

 

Indeed Brexit is really a side-show.  The Tory party's main function is war and the economy. If it's phoney argument with the EU can be taken as the former, then we might conclude it has failed in both aspects.

 

In essence, we have a government that is weak, divided, and utterly impotent both in ideas and action. It doesn't really want a quick solution to Brexit, and doesn't much care about getting a satisfactory deal, since it is relying on limbo and uncertainty to keep it in power. Without Brexit the Government really has nothing to offer, other than seemingly magical spells to cure austerity.  Seen in this light, Brexit has assumed the status of a holy mandate, placed even above the integrity of the nation, and it's economic interests.

[transam]

6 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Scotland has developed- that doesn't come cheap!  I don't think there are any grounds for claiming it has been short changed.  I do agree that successive governments have been a sxxxshow, the present one perfectly exemplifying the brown exhibition.  Thus, Scotland has merely suffered from the same mis-management as the rest.

 

The frustration for Scotland and most reasonable Brits as a whole is that they want a government equal to the challenges of the time: resecuring public utilities, renewable energy, business regeneration, fair distribution of wealth.

 

Indeed Brexit is really a side-show.  The Tory party's main function is war and the economy. If it's phoney argument with the EU can be taken as the former, then we might conclude it has failed in both aspects.

 

In essence, we have a government that is weak, divided, and utterly impotent both in ideas and action. It doesn't really want a quick solution to Brexit, and doesn't much care about getting a satisfactory deal, since it is relying on limbo and uncertainty to keep it in power. Without Brexit the Government really has nothing to offer, other than seemingly magical spells to cure austerity.  Seen in this light, Brexit has assumed the status of a holy mandate, placed even above the integrity of the nation, and it's economic interests.

What a load of crap.....????

[mommysboy]

19 minutes ago, vogie said:

Where do you get this "people wanted a soft brexit", this terminology only came into the publics vocabulary months after the referendum. We voted as a Nation to stay or leave, nothing more, nothing less.

We know things are not going as smoothly as one would wish for, but the last time I checked the polls the Tories were still ahead of labour. We can forget about the LibDems, the party that voters shunned because they wanted another referendum.

Incidentally Labour had a hard brexit in their manifesto.

I watched Alistair Campbell with Nigel Farage on Breakfast TV the other day and Nigel suggested that the Labour Party was split, to which he replied, "no it isn't, it's divided, the mind boggles.

Quite simply, the polls I've seen show that the electorate want some form of soft Brexit.  One has appeared recently on this forum.  Alarmingly, there also appears to be a growing demand in both Scotland and N.Ireland to leave the UK.

 

At root, this isn't about Cons vs Labour this is about something far more fundamental.  

 

Yes we voted to leave, but what we are now talking about is the manner in which that is to be done.  If the Government had come up with a plan which remotely resembled the will of the people, do you really think a deal would not have been done already? 

 

 

[mommysboy]

3 minutes ago, transam said:

What a load of crap.....????

I dare say it is to the typical Tory from England.

 

QED, really!

[Grouse]

6 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

Following on from my post of yesterday from The Guardian concerning the EU’s potentially disastrous lack of planning for derivatives contracts post Brexit, I was double whammyed this morning when I read this commentary in The Telegraph on the IMF’s Financial Stability Report October 2018. Forgive the length of the quote, but it’s behind a paywall, and I wanted to make sure that everyone got a good gander:

 

 

“Jacques Delors’ think tank ‘Notre Europe’, among others, has warned that the eurozone will not survive another global recession as currently designed. Without fiscal union the prospects are hopeless. Public debt ratios are much closer to the danger line than at the outset of the last downturn.

The contagion from a global crisis would push the eurozone into recession and shift the calculus on debt sustainability. The ECB would have no monetary ammunition left to combat the shock since interest rates are currently minus 0.4pc and its QE balance sheet is already 43pc of GDP.

Only a massive fiscal response could rescue Europe but this is expressly prohibited by the ‘Ordoliberal’ Stability Pact, and would in any case be impossible for the Club Med bloc without an EU fiscal guarantee.

If it reached this point, the eurozone would crash into deflation, leading to a string of sovereign bankruptcies and the devastation of Europe’s banks and financial system. Monetary union would shatter. Radical national movements of the Salvini stripe would sweep into power. It would the end of the post-War European order as we have known it.”

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/10/10/imf-knows-world-economy-dangerously-stretched-today-2008/

 

 

Well that's worrying! Any comment from ECB?

[transam]

2 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Quite simply, the polls I've seen show that the electorate want some form of soft Brexit.  One has appeared recently on this forum.  Alarmingly, there also appears to be a growing demand in both Scotland and N.Ireland to leave the UK.

 

At root, this isn't about Cons vs Labour this is about something far more fundamental.  

 

Yes we voted to leave, but what we are now talking about is the manner in which that is to be done.  If the Government had come up with a plan which remotely resembled the will of the people, do you really think a deal would not have been done already? 

 

 

????.....So you think the electorate understands about soft and hard Brexit, when many didn't vote and give a stuff...But those who did give a stuff voted to leave to get their streets back...The UK dealt with bombs, buried their dead and came out on top......It will happen again,  iPhone batteries permitting...